Download Free Microfilms Of The Henry Knox Papers Owned By The New England Historic Genealogical Society And Deposited In The Massachusetts Historical Society Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Microfilms Of The Henry Knox Papers Owned By The New England Historic Genealogical Society And Deposited In The Massachusetts Historical Society and write the review.

In Of One Mind and Of One Government Kevin Kokomoor examines the formation of Creek politics and nationalism from the 1770s through the Red Stick War, when the aftermath of the American Revolution and the beginnings of American expansionism precipitated a crisis in Creek country. The state of Georgia insisted that the Creeks sign three treaties to cede tribal lands. The Creeks objected vigorously, igniting a series of border conflicts that escalated throughout the late eighteenth century and hardened partisan lines between pro-American, pro-Spanish, and pro-British Creeks and their leaders. Creek politics shifted several times through historical contingencies, self-interests, changing leadership, and debate about how to best preserve sovereignty, a process that generated national sentiment within the nascent and imperfect Creek Nation. Based on original archival research and a revisionist interpretation, Kokomoor explores how the state of Georgia’s increasingly belligerent and often fraudulent land acquisitions forced the Creeks into framing a centralized government, appointing heads of state, and assuming the political and administrative functions of a nation-state. Prior interpretations have viewed the Creeks as a loose confederation of towns, but the formation of the Creek Nation brought predictability, stability, and reduced military violence in its domain during the era.
The battles of Trenton and Princeton have been the subject of several recent books, but this story complements them by expanding the story to include the many experiences of the people of Princeton in the wider Revolution and their contributions to it. This story combines social history with the better known military and political history of the Revolution. It does not just deal with amorphous groups and institutions, but rather with individuals working with and affected by various groups on both sides of the conflict. Readers can identify with real people they get to know in the story. This story of Princeton unfolds in narrative format and, while deeply researched, reads more like a novel than an academic study.
A fascinating history of a contested frontier, where struggles over landownership brought Native Americans and English colonists together in surprising ways to preserve Indigenous territory. Properties of Empire shows the dynamic relationship between Native and English systems of property on the turbulent edge of Britain’s empire, and how so many colonists came to believe their prosperity depended on acknowledging Indigenous land rights. As absentee land speculators and hardscrabble colonists squabbled over conflicting visions for the frontier, Wabanaki Indians’ unity allowed them to forcefully project their own interpretations of often poorly remembered old land deeds and treaties. The result was the creation of a system of property in Maine that defied English law, and preserved Native power and territory. Eventually, ordinary colonists, dissident speculators, and grasping officials succeeded in undermining and finally destroying this arrangement, a process that took place in councils and courtrooms, in taverns and treaties, and on battlefields. Properties of Empire challenges assumptions about the relationship between Indigenous and imperial property creation in early America, as well as the fixed nature of Indian “sales” of land, revealing the existence of a prolonged struggle to re-interpret seventeenth-century land transactions and treaties well into the eighteenth century. The ongoing struggle to construct a commonly agreed-upon culture of landownership shaped diplomacy, imperial administration, and matters of colonial law in powerful ways, and its legacy remains with us today.
On December 25, 1776, the American Revolution seemed all but defeated just six months after the Declaration of Independence had been adopted. George Washington’s army had suffered a series of defeats in New York and had retreated under British pressure across New Jersey and then the Delaware River to temporary sanctuary in Pennsylvania. This left the British army in a string of winter cantonments across the middle of New Jersey, the New Jersey state government in total disarray, and the Continental Congress fleeing Philadelphia now perceived as the next British target. Loyalists in New Jersey felt empowered and Patriots felt abandoned. Washington needed not only a battlefield victory, but also to reestablish Patriot control in New Jersey. Otherwise, it would be impossible to raise a larger, long-term army to continue the fight and convince the citizens that victory was possible. The story of these ten crucial days is one that displays Washington’s military and interpersonal abilities along with his personal determination and bravery to keep the Revolution alive through maintaining the psychological confidence of the Patriots, while reducing the psychological confidence of his British political and military opponents. Throughout these ten days, Washington was faced with changing situations requiring modifications or outright different plans and his well-thought-out actions benefitted from elements of luck—such as the weather or British decisions—which he could not control. While most books look at these ten crucial days focusing on the military actions of the armies involved, this account also considers what was happening in other parts of the world. Leaders and ordinary people in other parts of America, in Britain, and in France were also dealing with the Revolution as they understood its condition. Without the instantaneous communication we have today, they were dealing with dated information and were missing knowledge that could influence their thoughts about the Revolution. This lack of immediate communication was also true—although to lesser extent—for the individuals directly involved in the events in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.